I didn't know if this is the right place for this post, but it wasn't necessarily a "hot jock" topic. But saw a New York Times article featuring the democratic and republican candidates vying to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat. Interstingly enough, the Republican candidate Scott Brown was once Cosmopolitan's hottest man in America when he was attending law school. Do you guys think he's hot? I kind of like him with the salt and pepper hair. Makes me want to join the Log Cabin society.

Scott Brown in his younger days...



And today as a politician and family man...

Wow...one of the few times when a man actually looks HOTTER with age! He's got my vote! Heck, I'll vote twice!

WOW is right! Man, I say use the Cosmo spread to his advantage and pose again! He is hot.

He has aged very well (but I have always found more mature fit men very sexy), and since it is Massachussets I doubt anyone will give a damn about the Cosmo spread. Might even work to his advantage.

FYI, photobucket removed the cosmo photo. Boo. But here's a link if anyone wants to see what I'm referring to about his younger days: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news...n-nude-in-cosmo

Brown's posing in Cosmo has never been an issue for voters here in MA. He's my state senator and I have never voted for him - he is anti-SSM. He now holds the seat once occupied by Cheryl Jacques, an open lesbian who left MA politics to head up HRC around 2003. Anyhow, Brown really doesn't stand a chance against his opponent for Kennedy's seat, Martha Coakley.

Hey! Where do you think you are, Crook County, Illinois?!?




Don't be so quick to say that. Poll after poll has shown that he is in the lead, and Charlie Cook of the Cook Report, who one month ago said this race leaned "heavily Democratic" now calls it as "Brown favored to win." If he wins, and I hope he does (the Democrats' actions the last several days truly disgust me, and this health care bill is absolutely horrible that I'd vote for a Satanist if he'd vote against it), the political ramifications would be nothing short of apocalyptic.

A Brown victory would be good for the nation as a whole, because it would, at least temporarily, restore my faith in the American voter, who can look past party identity and blind ideology and elect someone as an individual and not be treated as lemmings. Now if we can just get the blacks of Crook County to stop voting for the Todd Strogers who ram through policies that decimate the black and minority communities.

From the point of view of health care only, the determinative factor in the Massachusetts senate race will be how voters see their self-interest.

As for now most seem to be viewing that in the short-term:However if they view it in the long-term they would realize that their "near-universal" coverage will bankrupt the state if the cost nationwide continues to rise. They are following the example of other states like Nebraska and Connecticut.

This will inevitably lead to cutting services that they now think will be damaged by passing the current bills - certainly the one in the house and likely the one from the senate, which is what the final negotiated bill will likely most resemble. Even if that final product that unity may be ephemeral if insurance companies successfully block any measure that impinges upon their profits.

These profits have been increasing not by delivering better service, or becoming more efficient, at delivering it but by decreasing or eliminating service as much as and wherever possible. That will be apparent by 2012.

Joe Klein on Mass. Election



Funniest part of this campaign was the Rhode Island Representative Patrick Kennedy's repeated reference to Coakley as "Marcia" yesterday.

The Obama Administration is ignoring the deep reservations among a great many out there about Health Care. Coakley is also a bad candidate. There are several issues during her tenure as State AG that were troubling. And she has committed some big faux pas during her campaign.

"Blame Bush" may have worked in last year's campaign. It may not work this time.

Indeed, which is why this is all about Obama and not Bush. It also leads more credence to the belief that Obama wasn't hired as much as Bush/GOP was fired. Well, Democrats control everything now. This election, even if Brown loses by a small margin, is a referendum on Obama, health care, and the Democrats' extremely radical agenda.

Look, there are a great deal of issues where I disagree with Obama and the Democrats, especially on fiscal policy and statist approaches to problems. But radical? No, not really. The Health Care bill contains no public option, will likely not contain federal funding for elective abortions, and still leaves the Insurance Companies with a great deal of power. The rush to get it passed, the inability to educate the public about it, and the ability of the opposition to capitalize on unease about the pace of it and ignorance of it may have doomed it from the start.

A Brown win, on the other hand, does not bode well for gay rights. Democrats will run from issues that may cost them their seats. Guess what? Gay rights is one of those issues. We saw it in New Jersey. The Democrats could have gotten marriage equality passed in NJ before Corzine lost the election with support from Republican state elected officials. Polls showed a majority favoring it. When it did come to a vote, the Republicans who supported marriage equality theretofore caved and fell into line behind the party. Democrats caved too. The new NJ Senate president, a Democrat, did not even vote!!!

Tom Moran on NJ Gay Marriage Vote

We may not see the repeal of DADT, if Brown wins.

And, then what about everything else. This will galvanize the Republicans into further obstructionism until 2012. The problem with the Republicans is that they are not offering any viable alternative plans for real problems facing us, like Health Care. And who do they have as an alternative to Obama? Sarah Palin? God help us!

I may be with the Republicans on a whole range of issues from national security to fiscal policy. However, they do not want me as an openly gay man. At best they want me as a second-class citizen...separate but equal. No thank you. Reactionary scares me more than radical!!

I'm more concerned with the further bankrupting of our country, further socializing our health care, and other related things than I am "gay rights."

I'm sure there will be those here who think I'm nuts (wait in line, please) or that I don't think of "rights" as important. Of course I do. I just don't find them as urgent or important as the other issues you mentioned. I just have a different set of priorities, and right now, my own personal satisfaction takes a back seat to the state of the country, which under Obama I believe has gone from bad to worse, unfortunately.

It's amazing how Bush's ineptitude can so quickly be eclipsed by Obama's; but that's what you get when one elects a boy to do a man's job.

While on this topic, can I make a suggestion to Obama and the Democrats? Stop insulting the average American! Your arrogance and condescension are insulting and uncalled for.

No fewer than 5 times yesterday did Obama make fun of Brown for driving a truck--a GM truck at that! Along with other speakers, Obama further criticized in general those who drive trucks, as if they're some kind of ignorant hicks. This attitude of "we know better than you do how to run your own lives" and "you're nothing more than a stupid redneck" is pissing off more and more Americans, and if they keep it up, Democrats will suffer greatly come November and beyond.

They're digging their own graves more quickly and deeper than the GOP had begun to dig theirs. Unbelievable.

It is very frustrating, especially when people are upset at Obama for pointing out that Brown tried to use his truck as some kind of code in his ads. I'm Scott Brown and I drive a truck. Well people should be saying "So the f**k what". Republicans are masters at creating a red herring, knowing that the electorate will not sit still long enough to think it through.

That's no excuse for such arrogant but childish attacks on people who drive trucks.

BTW, before someone accuses me of driving trucks--I don't. Never have.

As a US senator Scott Brown would not be making any decisions directly affecting Massachusetts' health care system thus his toxic views on the issue are not likely to hurt him in this race.

And there is speculation that he may not be instated in time to block the current federal reforms.

But the issue that should most concern Massachusetts voters is that he does not even comply with the spirit of their health laws by buying insurance for his own campaign staff, something that Oakley claims to be doing.

Perhaps he considers it hypocritical to buy health insurance for his staff when he feels everyone else should have the "right" to have a job without health insurance. Does this help Massachusetts health insurers?

And indeed mandates are still an issue for much of the country.

But they are not an issue in Massachusetts where virtually everyone is required to have health insurance.

Um, does this mean Levi Johnston has a shot at a seat in the Senate in 2038?

Okay, you TOTALLY lost me with that one.

And so the Dems... the ballsless, wimp-led Dems... have done the unthinkable.

Anyone ready to join an actual progressive party yet?

Brown won- maybe they should have run a Kennedy- like Joe Jr?

No thanks. I'm tired of political families. I feel as if we're royalty or something. When one person dies we have to replace him/her with the son or daughter, etc. Enough of the Bushes, Kennedys, et. al.

I've come to the conclusion that Brown is way hotter now then when he was during that Cosmo spread!

Yes, you make some good points. But I have no desire to be an Uncle Tom! Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress made a huge mistake rushing Health Care through and sidelining why he was elected in the first place...fixing the economy. And they dismissed the significant opposition to what they were doing.

Gay Rights have lost. And there is no reason that issue needs to take second place. Yeah, I'm concerned about financial security in my future, but I'm as equally concerned about having equal rights to all other Americans.

THe repeal of DADT will be forgotten now. Don't even think about the repeal of the DOMA. I guess I should be content that I may be invited to the White House Easter Egg Roll! Yeah, right!

The Courts are our last hope!



The Dems should have thought out of the box. They were sure Coakley...a bad candidate...would be elected, because she was the anointed one. That's smugness. Going with Joe Jr. would have added entitlement to smugness!

So when DOMA and DADT come up for a vote and we lose by one, I hope you eat this crow 10x as much.

Chill, Metsfan. I'm only legally registered to vote in three states and Mass. isn't one of them. I couldn't have voted for him if I had wanted to.

OOPS!!



This.
Altho he was hot then, too...
Can you imagine how the Repubs would have been up in arms if a Dem had posed nude? I hate politics in this country.

The only thing interesting and frankly funny about this guy is the fact that nowhere on his signs did he list his party, he didn't even mention his party in his victory speech. In essence, he ran AWAY from his party. So as bad as the polls have been for Dems, they are even WORSE for the Republicans on whole. It won't take too long before the voters in Mass found out they just voted for a sexist and homophobe...whose only agenda, is to bring down Obama, just like the good Sen. Demint. Memo to Coakley. Never take voters for granted.

With effective veto in the Senate over any bill that comes up, the Republicans are essentially responsible for running the country - after two years of a Democratic administration with majorities in both Houses.

We'll see how they do this.

The economy is still the issue but I expect they will change the topic if popular opinion finally begins to hold them responsible for it. And the best way to do that has always been with a good war.

Gays, abortion and other "liberal agenda" issues will likely not be enough to distract from the central economic issues as they have in the past. And harping too strongly on them will further threaten the only potential allies (gays and women) Republicans need to form any kind of governing majority. Hispanics will probably remain suspicious of them because of the immigration issue.

Preventing financial regulation - the only thing they can do with a minority - is likely as damaging to the economy as reversing any gains already made, which is what they seem to want to do.

Anyone who believes financiers have learned any lessons from this Great Recession should expect some disappointment. The Republican assumption that going back to the old ways will bring back old times is refuted even by Reaganites.

Scott Brown Wins, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority

Let's just roll over and die, shall we?

No, let's not roll over and die. But I'm pissed off about the election of a guy who promised change, but has governed as a political insider. The same old crap!

Dems' Secret Deals

Obama promised to govern with Republicans. Now he has to. Maybe it will prove his mettle. Or maybe it will prove him to be another Carter!

For us, Obama can still be a Truman. Truman desegregated the Armed Forces in the face of an opposed Congress. He had guts.

Let's see if he can repeal DADT by presidential fiat and take a stand against the DOMA.

He probably won't. Obama no doubt will live up to Frank Rich's estimation vis a vis us:
You're Likable Enough, Gay People

I am! I am!

Some of the things Brown is saying suggests he may not be ideologically opposed to health care reform in the manner of Joe Lieberman:And his reasons for opposing the current bill are exactly what I would have expected:What remains to be seen is how he expects any health care reform to survive without reducing the overall cost to the country.

If taxes are not the solution then either funds will have to be shuffled or the federal deficit increased - neither is palatable to the vast majority of politicians or the electorate.

Unless he has a magic wand something will have to give. So far he has not explicitly mentioned protecting the insurance industry in his state. However if the solution he proposes has that effect it will meet opposition.

^^^^^ This!!! I never thought I'd be saying this but I'm glad Brown won. This whole health care thing has been a disaster and the final bill they wanted to pass was shit!! I think that Obama wanted to try and get healthcare done early because he knew it would be such a polarizing issue and he didn't want to do it on the backside of his first term. What he should've been focused on is THE ECONOMY!!! That should've been issue #1. The constant watering down of it and the infighting took its toll on people. Ironic that it happened to be Ted Kennedy's seat, a man who fought so long for universal healthcare, that will end up probably stopping this thing dead in its tracks. The Democrats are a bunch of pussies as usual. When the Republicans are in office and have majorities, agree or disagree, they get their shit done. We have a Dem president and Dem controlled Congress and its infighting and tomfoolery. What...the f**k?!!

Joe Scarborough said it best though this morning. A presidency does have many seasons and I think Obama can recover from this if the economy strengthens and jobs return. But with New Jersey, Virginia, and a reliably blue state like Mass electing a Republican for the first time in 50 years, people are sending a message that they are fed up. But before the party of NO Republicans take a victory lap, they need to realize that polls aren't hot for them either. At least the Dems tried to put something on the table for healthcare reform. The Republicans haven't put forth anything. This whole healthcare issue was very popular at one point, but the way it was put together and rushed along with the economic and jobs situation was so piss poorly done. So...congrats to Brown and now maybe the Democrats will grow a pair and get their priorities straight. And gawd dammit stop trying to be nice to Republicans. They want Obama to fail so they will continue to fight everything he wants to do. All the niceties aren't going to make a bit of difference.

Agree with you here. If the economy picks up a bit, and it should, and some jobs come back, its going to me mightly hard for the GOP to stand on ANYTHING. AFter all, as you pointed out, all they care about is Obama to fail, nothing else. Period. But if the jobs don't come back, and its also possible things don't really improve for years, then if they should take control of the House and gain some Senate seats, then they get to try to clean up the mess that they, largely helped to create when Delay ran the show. So be careful what you wish for Republicans!

So far Brown is talking like the old-school New England Republicans - a dying breed since they were swept away by the reaction to the extremism of the Bush II administration.

Given the right adjustments to the current health care legislation, a core bill may yet pass. What happens afterward will become more important than ever.

This election has already produced changes in Washington. Obama is now sounding like a populist going after the banks. Geithner is right to disagree with Obama here. Mike Bloomberg does as well.
Geithner on Outs with the Boss


Well, the Republican Party needs to come up with constructive ideas to counter the ideas from the other side. Being obstructionist won't win them any elections. But the White House and Congressional Democratic leadership should take note:
The Scott Heard Round the World!

As for Brown himself, well, I didn't like him, because I feared the implication for gay rights. But then again, after a year in office, Obama hasn't done anything substantive for us either! After reading the following in the Post, Brown may not be the homophobe Olbermann said he was. Olbermann, though, is just as mediocre in mentality as O'Reilly is!

Brown not so easy to peg on issues!

I wouldn't read gay tolerance in to that link BBB. Brown is a clever politician who takes middle of the road positions to get elected. That's called opportunism.

Obama did the same thing, though I believe Obama has core values whereas Brown has adjustable ones. Obama's values can justify putting us at the back of the bus, Browns could be adjusted to toss us off - permanently - if other issues (like his interpretation of national security) were more important.

As for Obama being "outs" with Geithner, his core values always have been. The failure of Geithner's bank bailout to filter down to "Main Street" is what has caused Obama to return to those core values. He has always said he is willing to change when something is not working, and the bailout is not, at least not for anyone not living off the bloody lucre of Wall Street.

And I would not doubt that being obstructionist can win elections. The Republicans only have to support pseudo-moderate policies that appeal to the most base populism, even if they know they are impracticable, long enough for the Democrats to lose elections. If the policies are implemented and seem to be succeeding they simply take partial credit. If they are implemented and fail they can always claim that they were not handled properly by the Democrats. As they see it, they can't lose as the party out of power.

The only problem they may have is that reality may catch up with them before they can regain the congress.

Simple fact is that Obama needs to concentrate on the economy and job creation. Based on the unemployment rates, it does not appear that the massive stimulus package is serving it's intended purpose. Just what is Obama's plan/goal for growing the economy? He can't continue to blame the previous administration. It's his administration's weak economy now.

On a more superficial note, Scott Brown is one sexy man!!! Definitely ranks up there with Gavin Newsome and Mitt Romney as my favs.

The election of Scott Brown had nothing to do with runaway liberalism or opposition to any specific policies of the Obama administration; according to polling data, more than 80% of people who voted for both Obama and Brown support the public option. This was a primal scream against high unemployment and against an establishment that has failed average Americans. Massachusetts voters didn't stop being liberal, but they stopped voting for the people they perceive to be in charge. Democrats had better get their act together pronto and start passing bills that have a direct, positive impact on the lives of voters, or November 2010 is going to be ugly.

The Democrats' spinelessness cannot be f***ing overstated.

Sorry, but that is not exactly right.
Voters Say Country Off Track

When you try to sell a Health Care Bill that is over 2000 pages long, which few people know the extent of its coverage, do back-door deals with senators and unions after promising transparency in government, and dismiss a sizable portion of the American public who are at least uneasy with it or at most oppose it, you're asking for trouble.

The populist rhetoric Obama (a Harvard-educated lawyer, hardly the stuff of populism) espouses now in response can only go so far. He needs to reach across the aisle (and the Republicans have to do the same) in order to solve very real problems. There are echoes of "It's the economy, stupid" today. Hope they all smarten up!

If you're going to tell the story tell the complete story:

1) The really, really, really long bill seems to be too much for even the supposedly superior Republicans to read. Even with staff and doing hardly any other Senate business they can't read something which is really more like a 600 page book when font and spacing is taken into consideration.

2) The back door deals started with the drug companies. And the only people stopping the bill are the Republicans in the Senate. They're not participating in the process, they're just being obstructionist for their own political gain, nothing to do with the health of the country. They don't give a shit that people are dying without coverage. If they did they would have made that proposal, instead all they want to do is say no.

3) What exactly is the American public "uneasy" with? If the bill is too long for the staunchest opponents to read where is the public getting their information as to what's in the bill? It doesn't go both ways. People either know what's in the bill or they don't. I would submit that there hasn't really been an honest discussion on the bill that would allow people to make an informed decision. It's all sound bites and buzz words. I blame the supposed liberal media for that. When one of the wacko Republicans says something crazy like "death panel" the only response should be to tell that person that they are crazy, not engage them in a logical discussion on an illogical point.

Either you're against health care for all, in which case it's more honest to just say I don't want it no matter how long the bill is or who's involved in the process. If you're for it then how about some suggestions rather than just a rehashing of propoganda.

I'll start: Single payer Medicare for all. All providers have to take it. Highly taxed, supplemental policies available to those with the ability to pay for it, but never at the expense of the main, overall plan.

Your point is well taken, SeaCraig.

Here are two takes on it:
From a Well-Respected Journalist
From the Finacial Times


People are worried more about jobs and their homes. Tackle those fears first.

One of the mistakes the Republicans made was that they governed with arrogance, not listening to reasonable voices of opposition. The Democrats are making the same mistake. Obama can restore trust in government. He was elected as someone who was not like the same old politicians.

As for your points:

1. Sell the bill better.

2. That involves transparency. Doesn't matter if it started with drug companies, Obama promised open doors.

3. The unease is with the government involved more in their lives. There is a large strain of governmental distrust running through the American public and our history. "Death Panels" may have been whacky, but it fed into that distrust.

And it spells higher taxes, when Americans cannot bear them. Va., NJ, and Mass. have shown this to be true.

It's easy to oppose a health care bill that, as one of the talking heads said this morning, has been sitting out on the counter like two-day-old milk (make that year-old milk). At this point in the debate it becomes extremely difficult to separate out opposition to the process from opposition to the policy. The fact is that more than 80% of MA voters who switched from Obama to Brown support the part of the bill deemed to be the most "liberal," the famous public option. As I wrote before, it's not about liberalism or conservatism or some obsolete idea of a left-center-right spectrum, it's about results. As for reaching across the aisle, that's hard to pull off when the other side has an electoral incentive not to negotiate, as the Republicans do. One hand can't clap by itself.

I think a bare-bones bill that prevented insurance companies from dropping sick people and is portable, so long as you can afford to pay for the initial premium you agreed to (or at least the same as everyone else carrying insurance with the company), might have passed.

Though Republicans - and some democrats - still would not have agreed with it, might have been pushed through the senate's 60-vote roadblock.

In other words make them actually offer insurance regardless of what they charge.

What is offered now defies the definition.

You can't do that without a mandate, because everyone would just wait until they get sick before buying insurance. And you can't do a mandate without having a nationwide system to buy insurance because there needs to be a simple way to get covered and the states don't want to take on the burden. And you can't do the nationwide system (in the current bills, an exchange) without deciding what can and can't be offered there. This is not an issue that can be attacked piecemeal, which is likely the main reason it has taken so long to get universal health care through Congress.

Requiring that two parties continue in a mutually agreed upon bargain does not require any "mandate" more than what is required for any contract now.

Not allowing insurance companies to drop people or refuse to insure them due to their health status, does not force people to buy insurance.

It might cause many insurance companies who currently have more unhealthy people on the roles to leave the business - selling out to larger ones with a more diverse pool. Medicaid and Medicare would get some.

Taxes and premiums paid by those with insurance already are financing the health care of those people without insurance when they end up in the emergency room.

Yes ultimately that might lead to a single payer system. But it is not one by definition.

The current system is unsustainable. A barebones system would make that more obvious more quickly. Right now the debate about how to pay for the care of those who don't have health insurance is what is concerning the 70% of people who already have some kind of insurance. No one wants to carry that burden.

The nude photos of Brown are attractive but his politics turn me off. If a dem had shot a racy photo spread even when they were younger then the Republicans would have called them all sorts of pornographers. The spread was tasteful and harmless. Brown's anti health care policies are not harmless however. He wants to stop national healthcare for the U.S. people.

You just gotta KNOW, with his background, posing and whatnot, he has some skeletons in his closet. Something will come out sooner or later. And I bet its not pretty. Time will tell. I wonder if he is going to the Tea Party Convention In Nashville. I hear SP will be there.

That cosmo spread sure looked homoerotic to me. I'm with the dude who thinks that Brown has some skeletons in his closet.

Speaking of homoerotic - in a sense - lots of media seem to picking up on the story about the family link ancestral link between Obama and Brown. Judging from the photo:



the family resemblance might not be apparent from a glance. I personally think Obama got the better deal as far as aging well. And considering that their common male ancestor - Richard Singletary of Haverhill, Massachusetts - lived to be 102, that is no small matter.

Of even more interest to me though are the facts noted in this article by the reporter who originally broke the story:Nice research.